5 ms·

Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science. The scientific metho

Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science. The scientific method does not say, "get everyone you think is smart to vote on it, if they all agree, it must be true". I really wish lay people would quit turning science into a religion and scientists into priests.

ptah 7y ago
the scientific method DOES say that a result should be reproducible. and in this case it is reproducible beyond what is required for it to become accepted
- civility 7y ago
  I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt and uncertainty about whether the apocalypse is coming. Most people just lock their heels and reinforce their current beliefs. This message will probably fade away into a light shade of grey, making me wonder why I even bothered. However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth.
  - dTal 7y ago
    >However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth. Me too. Because it's spelled 'consensus'.
    - civility 7y ago
      Heh, you got me there.
  - agent008t 7y ago
    It would be really interesting to know if the research/models have been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.
    - civility 7y ago
      > and have a pro-economic growth bias Sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's honestly tough to tell. Amusingly, I think anyone who can make a model of the climate which can predict 100 years into the future really should make a model of the stock market a modest 1 year into the future instead. Having done so, they could make enough money to buy whatever technological or political change they think would solve the climate problem.
      - agent008t 7y ago
        No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, because they would likely have a higher hurdle for being convinced that we may indeed need to sacrifice economic growth to change the course of humanity's future for the better. If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' policies apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.
        civility 7y ago
        > No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, [...] I like how that sets the bar higher for extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof. Although honestly, I'll always be skeptical about extrapolation and predicting the future more than a few cycles out. > If there is any such bias among climate scientists [...] I agree. It seems fair to ask who goes into and gets accepted as a PhD in that field. It's pretty easy to imagine there could be a selection bias, and "science advances one funeral at a time".
  - modzu 7y ago
    just wanted to thank you. advocating for scientific literacy is my only stake in this debate
adrianN 7y ago
I'm not a climate scientist, so I let the experts battle it out and then look at the scientific consensus. I trust experts in all areas of my life, because I don't have the time to become an expert myself. Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're a politician and your task is to ensure that future generations have a chance to live a more prosperous life.
- civility 7y ago
  That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because you're part of a mob. I mean it's one thing for an expert to claim certainty and argue their point of view, but you aren't actually certain - you just picked the safer bet. To be clear, I think the world would be a lot better place with less burning coal. I care a lot about the poisoning and pollution in the oceans. I think smog is disgusting. I probably have one of the smallest "carbon footprints" of any adult you know. However, I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. And concensus doesn't compel me much at all. Once upon a time in America, you could probably get a concensus (even among scientists!) that God was real.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The very fact that the climate is hard to predict and the models we use probably linearize a lot of nonlinear systems is what scares me most. The further we depart from normal average temperatures, the more likely it becomes that we hit some scary feedback loop the models don't account for and enter a hothouse Earth climate with palm trees at the poles.
    - civility 7y ago
      Yeah, in the absence of information or understanding, a lot of people like to imagine the worst. I guess that's a good defensive instinct.
baq 7y ago
the scientific method is about hypotheses and experiments. we're running a global experiment now, with potentially disastrous consequences, which can't be repeated, and you're saying you're fine to wait for its outcome because it's unscientific to do otherwise, basic thermodynamics notwithstanding, and you dare to tell others that science is turning into a religion, where in fact you have an irrational approach to the problem at hand which you're rationalizing as 'scientific method'. i'm afraid that in fact your stance on climate warming is a question of your identity instead of logical thought.
lm28469 7y ago
> Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science. As opposed to ? Being so skeptic that you deny everything you don't personally believe in no matter the amount of proof your are given ?

ptah 7y ago

the scientific method DOES say that a result should be reproducible. and in this case it is reproducible beyond what is required for it to become accepted

civility 7y ago
I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt and uncertainty about whether the apocalypse is coming. Most people just lock their heels and reinforce their current beliefs. This message will probably fade away into a light shade of grey, making me wonder why I even bothered. However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth.
- dTal 7y ago
  >However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth. Me too. Because it's spelled 'consensus'.
  - civility 7y ago
    Heh, you got me there.
- agent008t 7y ago
  It would be really interesting to know if the research/models have been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.
  - civility 7y ago
    > and have a pro-economic growth bias Sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's honestly tough to tell. Amusingly, I think anyone who can make a model of the climate which can predict 100 years into the future really should make a model of the stock market a modest 1 year into the future instead. Having done so, they could make enough money to buy whatever technological or political change they think would solve the climate problem.
    - agent008t 7y ago
      No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, because they would likely have a higher hurdle for being convinced that we may indeed need to sacrifice economic growth to change the course of humanity's future for the better. If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' policies apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.
      - civility 7y ago
        > No - I think having a pro-economic growth bias would be helpful, [...] I like how that sets the bar higher for extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof. Although honestly, I'll always be skeptical about extrapolation and predicting the future more than a few cycles out. > If there is any such bias among climate scientists [...] I agree. It seems fair to ask who goes into and gets accepted as a PhD in that field. It's pretty easy to imagine there could be a selection bias, and "science advances one funeral at a time".
- modzu 7y ago
  just wanted to thank you. advocating for scientific literacy is my only stake in this debate

adrianN 7y ago

I'm not a climate scientist, so I let the experts battle it out and then look at the scientific consensus. I trust experts in all areas of my life, because I don't have the time to become an expert myself. Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're a politician and your task is to ensure that future generations have a chance to live a more prosperous life.

civility 7y ago
That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because you're part of a mob. I mean it's one thing for an expert to claim certainty and argue their point of view, but you aren't actually certain - you just picked the safer bet. To be clear, I think the world would be a lot better place with less burning coal. I care a lot about the poisoning and pollution in the oceans. I think smog is disgusting. I probably have one of the smallest "carbon footprints" of any adult you know. However, I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. And concensus doesn't compel me much at all. Once upon a time in America, you could probably get a concensus (even among scientists!) that God was real.
- adrianN 7y ago
  The very fact that the climate is hard to predict and the models we use probably linearize a lot of nonlinear systems is what scares me most. The further we depart from normal average temperatures, the more likely it becomes that we hit some scary feedback loop the models don't account for and enter a hothouse Earth climate with palm trees at the poles.
  - civility 7y ago
    Yeah, in the absence of information or understanding, a lot of people like to imagine the worst. I guess that's a good defensive instinct.

baq 7y ago

the scientific method is about hypotheses and experiments. we're running a global experiment now, with potentially disastrous consequences, which can't be repeated, and you're saying you're fine to wait for its outcome because it's unscientific to do otherwise, basic thermodynamics notwithstanding, and you dare to tell others that science is turning into a religion, where in fact you have an irrational approach to the problem at hand which you're rationalizing as 'scientific method'. i'm afraid that in fact your stance on climate warming is a question of your identity instead of logical thought.

lm28469 7y ago

> Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science. As opposed to ? Being so skeptic that you deny everything you don't personally believe in no matter the amount of proof your are given ?